August 26, 2011

There are some people who need to apologize to Mr. Justice David Prosser now that he has been cleared and soon. They took a shallowly researched and preposterous allegation -- that Prosser held fellow justice Ann Walsh Bradley in a chokehold -- and ran to the guillotine with it.

Yes, let's look back on the public demonstrations. Let's remember that protesters had a big ugly balloon effigy of Justice Prosser, which they tied by the neck to a lamppost. Look at their signs. Let's remember how these protesters strung together "allegations about Justice Prosser choking Justice Bradley [with] much more general issues about abortion and violence against women." As I said at the time:

I heard no acknowledgements of the uncertainties about what we know about what happened and no sensitivity about fairness and due process. I heard: 1. declarations about the importance of women's issues and 2. a demonization of Justice Prosser.

This is the level of left-wing activism we witnessed here in Madison. A justice is despised because his decisions do not please liberals, and so, without thought, they forgot about things liberals like to love themselves for caring about, such as fairness and due process. These are the same people who have been chanting the chant "shame, shame, shame" for months up at the Capitol.

How are they not oppressed by their own shame? Seriously, for the purposes of writing the previous paragraph, I channeled the feeling of shame that I would feel if I had done that, and now I am literally nauseated. If I had said what the people in the video at the last link said, I would be weeping now and begging forgiveness. But I am not them, so I will simply ask that they stage a rally in support of Justice Prosser and they publicly retract their earlier statements and commit themselves to the core principles of liberalism: fairness and due process.

Blaska demands apologies from people who should be "ashamed of their lynch mob mentality." He names the "practitioners of the dark arts of 'by any means necessary.'" Check out his list (which unfortunately includes the name of a UW law student). I'll highlight this:

Ms. Emily Mills owes an apology for blogging that UW law professor and bloggress Ann Althouse "has gone to great and terrible lengths to excuse the alleged behavior, attack the credibility of only the anonymous sources with whom she disagrees, suggest that no arrests (yet) mean no wrongdoing, impugn the honor of Justice Bradley, and cast doubt on the very justice system of this state." Looks like it is the other way around, Ms. Emily.

(Here's my contemporaneous pushback of Mills.) Blaska ends his column with a request for more names. I have one: Bill Wineke. Like Mills, he owes me an apology.

225 comments:

The Madison demonstrators and their blind supporters show time and time again that they are a dishonest, ill-intentioned mob of shakedown artists and malcontents. They are the worst of the worst in American politics, so I wouldn't expect any apologies for you or for Judge Prosser. Scumbags only know how to be scumbags.

Moral relativists do not feel shame. In fact, they have nearly won a war to eradicate it. Our country is going swirly, in large part, because of it. It started when honor became something glance at sideways.

That a court decides not to press charges on some judge, politicians, or official in no way means that he wasn't actually guilty. It could mean all sorts of things--the suspected official had friends in high places (ie the WI court itself rather conservative) he paid someone off--whether in DA's office or cop shop--, or maybe sent a talented schicksa to er, "take care of" the right prosecutor, or Black Robe gangsta.

My favorite example of how public figures and journalists are never held to account would be Seymour Hersh and some of the stuff he wrote in The New Yorker late in the Bush Administration regarding imminent attacks on Iran, which were just not true. Never a retraction or correction. Like it (completely erroneous story, fed by anonymous sources who could only have had it out for Bush) never even happened.

Same with the purported Bradley-Prosser tilt. You'll never get an apology.

Wow--time for the little wannabe-mafia insults from the Alttards. Blow up doll--must be remembering yr mamacita, Maguro.

Prosser's a perp. The Bradley incident was just the latest of many incidents (like shouting "bitch!" at Kloppenberg. OR letting a priest convicted of sex-abuse walk, who went on to commit other crimes. Your sort of guy, Maggoturo

MADISON, Wis. -- "Investigative documents released by the Dane County Sheriff's Department on Friday show Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser admitted to putting his hands around Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's neck during a confrontation earlier this year, but said he didn't mean to do it and that it was "a total reflex."

Walsh Bradley accused Prosser of putting her in a chokehold during deliberations in June over a legal challenge to Gov. Scott Walker's contentious collective bargaining law.

The Sheriff's Department released the 117 pages of documents to the media on Friday, following a decision announced on Thursday by a Sauk County prosecutor not to file any charges in connection to the incident."

I haven't read the entire investigative report yet but I'm pretty sure Prosser did not admit to putting his hands around Walsh Bradley's neck as Channel3000 asserts.

More importantly, the whole Court can probably benefit from a review. Did an incident like this involving multiple judges of the court as witnesses, participants, then leakers to the media of false information and direct mistatements (Bradley to the MSJ "he put me in a chokehold, that is a fact" - bring discredit on the Court and the legal profession.

What of Bradley's other incident of physical aggression where she supposedly struck Prosser in the head and shook her fist in his face when he called her pal Abrahamson "Shirley"??

While this is exactly the sort of situation that would ordinarily call for the old "get his reputation back" line, I'm not sure it's what Blaska wants to reach for here considering what Prosser's reputation was like before.

You're the peasant here, Little Joejoe Cohen--incapable of even understanding the most basic of formal arguments, or Russell's pop-philosophy. You were waxed yesterday. As any sane rational reader of Althouse realized (not the yr cronies in Altperp mob).

The repetition of an outrageous lie is a fascist tactic. The fascists went further to widespread violence and physical intimidation. The radical left does this occasionally, and would do so much more if they thought they could get away with it.

The greatest shame here is that the so called mainstream left participates in, sanctions and benefits from these fundamental breaches of fairness and civility.

They do not care who they slime: Prosser, Special Prosecutor Barrett, Governor Walker, Althouse. They would slime you and me if we seemed to be making a difference.

Really? Ann you should know by now that progressives HAVE NO core principles, least of all the two you mention! Even if they claim to hold to those ideals they will not, and cannot define the terms, for then it would open them up to substantive discussion, when liberals (er, progressives)don't want debate, they want to proclaim and rule by fiat.

So, "fairness" is a word they apply to issues for which they want to paint their opponents as unfair, but they never say, for example what "paying their fair share means" because the level of taxation or punishment they wish to mete out to conservatives or hated corporations is ever-increasing.

Likewise due process only occurs when and how they choose to apply it. Speech codes, guilty until proved innocent and other shenanigans that run rampant on the campuses of higher education should disabuse of the desire for liberals to allow due process when they7 have majorities great enough to get away with it.

And, of course, they have no shame. Shame would require a conscience.

[I see others have already taken up this theme but here's my $0.02 anyway!]

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) understanding the most basic of formal arguments, or Russell's pop-philosophy. You were waxed yesterday. As any sane rational reader of Althouse realized (not the yr cronies in Altperp mob

Yes, quite right--like the outrageous lie that Prosser is innocent of all wrongdoing, when there's a pattern of abuse (ie, his verbal abuse of Kloopenberg) , instability and corruption. He's a perp--then teabugger perps vote for perps.

===========A slander lawsuit is possible. Bradley is not protected under the "in the act of judicial proceedings" waiver. She defamed Prosser by making a public statement through a mass media outlet. Accusing Prosser of criminal conduct she knew was not true, hoping to inflict severe damage on his reputation and career - which clears the "malice" bar.

Add that she struck him in the head in 2008 and has engaged in other "intimidating behavior".

Of course a slander lawsuit would muck up the Judicial Commission path...which might be preferred unless there is reason to believe they just want a whitewash and sweep under the rug approach. I believe the Judicial Commission does have subpeona power to call appropriate witnesses to testify ..."Lueters? Leuters?"

Lets also consider that the Commission might also look at Shirley Abrahamson's conduct in this matter closely for evaluation as bringing or not bringing discredit on the Court and legal profession by her actions.

@Chickenlittle that, I suspect, is because Althouse considers herself a "classic liberal" or liberal in the classic sense of the term as used by our founding fathers and as still used in France. However, because of her "classically liberal" point of view on her blog, progressives usually refer to her as a "rightwing blogress" or somesuch.

Hah! Right after the Gang of 88 apologize to the Duke lacrosse players.

=================Hah! Nothing says apologize without having to apologize than having your University CYA by settling out of court for several million per expelled Lacrosse player. With part of the deal being that the newly rich kids could not then go on to sue any of the 88 idiots or comment publicly on their conduct.

So J now resorts to the standard progressive trope of proclaiming Prosser guilty anyway. Not guilty of the exact offense he was accused of, naturally, but guilty nonetheless for many and sundry sins. Hell, nothing J lists is a crime, but Prosser should be strung up anyway. Gotta love that "liberal" vigilante justice doncha?

Justice Gableman said at this time his mind also went back to September 18, 2008, a date that he recalled because it was his birthday. Justice Gableman said he had been on the court for approximately one month at the time, and while in a meeting with the other justices, Justice Crooks was reading the horoscopes.

Justice Gableman said he remembers making a comment to the chief justice in a joking manner and used her first name, Shirley, during this comment towards her.

Justice Gableman said right after he said the chief justice's first name, Justice Bradley came over to him, hit him on the back of the head and told him that he needed to show respect to the chief. Justice Gableman said that he believed Justice Bradley was not joking because nobody was laughing at the time.

Sorry, Cedarford, I just don't think justices are in the business of suing each other.

It wouldn't be "cricket."

While Prosser WON! He gained national recognition. His opinions (which he prides himself in writing), will be a main focus. Even under a microscope.

Where's the downside for Prosser?

A lawsuit, however, would make him look mean, vindictive, and petty.

As to Abrahamson's "offer" yesterday ... to "open up conferences" to the public ... Is laughable.

I can count 4 votes, at least, against Abrahamson's "idea." And, that's because I think Crooks always goes home "early."

Abhramson?

This Judicial Committee ... is something Prosser set in motion. And, even when we get to the "event" ... where 4 justices were looking for Abrahamson. What IF the REASON they were looking for her ... had something to do with an opinion that was supposed to get published ... BUT only got published the next day or so?

Who blinked first?

The "chokehold?" Ain't "watergate." Won't make any journalists happy ... because there will be no "prizes."

Prosser's ability to remain quiet. And, to keep EVERYTHING he writes down on paper ... swayed by legal opinions he believes in ...

Means that Prosser, ahead, may be more persuasive with his colleagues. While 3 dames, Abrhamson, Bradley and Walsh ... look to be in a heaping bit of trouble?

To answer Ann's question: Prosser's reputation rises and falls on his published opinions.

And, if I remember WHY Kloppenhoppen never went after Prosser's record (of opinions) ... is that he's stood the test of time.

I'm afraid tha Wineke, like garage mahal, perpetulant shamer of Walker, would sooner do handstands on surfboard than apologize.

"[he said that] believed that he had made contact with Justice Bradley's neck. ... "I remember feeling her neck." ... Justice Prosser went on to say that he remembers the warmth on the side of Justice Bradley's neck in his hands as his hands were touching her neck." ... "What does any self respecting man do when suddenly that man finds that his hands or part of his hands are on a woman's neck? Get them off the neck as soon as possible." (Prosser, p. 41)

Nothing's changed. Anti-Vietnam demonstrations were couched in terms of concern for the yellow people of Vietnam. The demonstrations stopped when college kids weren't being pressed into service any longer. All that moral posturing was just pretense.

ah, garage mahal, yet another practioner of Leftist absolutism who thinks rape and love making are exactly the same thing because they both involve sexual intercourse ... but only when speaking of non-Leftists.

Tell us about the next recall election and how the ghost train's gonna come and deliver Wisconsin from injustice. Tell us about how the airplane's gonna fly over and bring the precious cargo, just like it used to.

So, J, how are the philosophy sites treating you these days? Still chuckling over your putting your oar in when you can't string two grammatically correct thoughts together? Any of them lift their bans?

How's that power lifting regimen going? Must be up to bench pressing 425 by now. Or is it 500?

You do provide some comic relief. You have that going for you anyway. But then that is the function of the village/bog idiot.

Justice Prosser was observed getting red in the face and pounding on a table with his fists in conference. (Crooks, p. 58)

Justice Prosser said that there'd be a war [with the Chief] and it wouldn't be a ground. (Crooks, p. 59)

At the June 15 meeting of the Justices over the incident, Justice Bradley said to Justice Prosser: "You put your hands on my neck in a chokehold." "Margaret said that at this point, nobody argued or corrected Justice Bradley from using the term 'chokehold.'" (Margaret Brady, Supreme Court HR Officer, p. 28)

J. -- Why all this animus to me, particularly when I am so interested in what you have to say? Wicca, the British Zionist bankers, the workings of grand juries, the free masons -- I must know about it all.

Carole Herman - Sorry, Cedarford, I just don't think justices are in the business of suing each other.

It wouldn't be "cricket."

While Prosser WON! He gained national recognition. His opinions (which he prides himself in writing), will be a main focus. Even under a microscope.

Where's the downside for Prosser?

A lawsuit, however, would make him look mean, vindictive, and petty.

======================A public slander lawsuit is an alternate. Just mentioning it is possible. As it clears the malice hurdle and is not protected as a matter of Justice Bradley acting in her capacity in judicial deliberations. I also said that it might muck up the Judiciary Commission path...so I wouldn't do it. At this time.But later, unless Prosser gets "satisfaction" in the official judge conduct review - I would see a lawsuit as appropriate.

Leftists, by virtue of accepting a philosophy devoid of personal accountability, are incapable of shame, or even self-awareness. That's why they continue trying to make life miserable for the rest of us.

It's not unmanly to buy clothes that say 'M' on the label, if it happens that those clothes actually fit you.

And, if you're manliness seems diminished when you skip the 'Large' rack of shirts (or jackets, as we've also seen Meade in a jacket that was way too big), you can compensate by shooting coyotes from your mountain bike. Or, just vote for a guy who shoots them, to protect his dog. Voting for a tough guy means you are a tough guy. Appealing, no?

Sixty Grit, both spellings are correct. I really find people who correct the spelling of others online to be arrogant. So if you are going to do that, make sure you are correct or otherwise you just look foolish.

Carol Herman, there is no "c" in shlemiel, and, apparently, no booze left in your bottle...

Sometimes. It depends if your shtetl was in Poland or Russia. But I think we can agree that Carol Underscore Herman's post was mostly schmegegge [or shmegegge, both are correct but one should stick (schtick?) to one convention and not mix the two, else you'll read kinda dumb and/or pretentious, kinda like J. It's like "I didn't like the colour of my neighbor's fence." -- sorta loony and contrived like a H. P. Lovecraft's vocabulary.]

I'm definitely beginning to think this is fun -- watching the hard core left react as they begin to understand that their political power is headed rapidly towards the 10 to 15 percent of the population they actually represent.

I used to restore mid-19th century houses with an old street fighter named Judah. He always wore two spiked rings on his right hand because, he said, "You smash a guy in the mouth with these it cuts him up. Once he begins tasting his own blood he goes crazy ... and then it's easy to beat him. Bad."

After Wisconsin this spring the left are tasting their own blood, and the crazier they get -- plenty of examples in these comments -- the easier it becomes to shove them into the utter irrelevance they so desperately deserve.

Apologize? It's simply a matter of moving on to the next available target...if not finding their way back to Prosser if it suits them later. I agree with some that the lerger issue here is that Bradley's statements are so incongrous that they call into question her ability to know what's a violation of law and when it is responsible to pursue it as such. She's simultaneously on record saying he tried to choke her with pressure, there would have been pressure if allowed to continue, didn't warrant criminal investigation, is a "workplace safety" issue. Should anyone trust that flow of logic from a SCOW justice? Can Shirley, teh one who should be above it all, be in charge when she went to the gutter at the expense of the institution? How does this chamber get beyond the sever dysfunction at this point?

At the June 15 meeting of the Justices over the incident, Justice Bradley said to Justice Prosser: "You put your hands on my neck in a chokehold." "Margaret said that at this point, nobody argued or corrected Justice Bradley from using the term 'chokehold.'" (Margaret Brady, Supreme Court HR Officer, p. 28)

Coincidentally, on that very same June 15 I announced that garage mahal's mother is no stranger to the embraces of domestic pets and barnyard animals ... and garage didn't disagree with me.

Carol Herman said....There are still, probably, more white people left in the KLAN, than there are countable people who represent the LEFT. (Even union members flee their own unions ... when they win the votes to do so.)

In the 1920's the Brooklyn Dodgers where cursed with an outfielder named Babe Herman who was know for his hitting as well as the fact that he was basically a retard.

"Babe Herman did not triple into a triple play, but he doubled into a double play, which is the next best thing." - John Lardner

Herman was involved in one of the most absurd plays in baseball history when he doubled into a double play. With the bases loaded, he hit a long hit and began racing around the bases. As he rounded second, the third base coach yelled at him to go back because the runner from first, Chick Fewster, hadn't yet rounded third. The runner from second, pitcher Dazzy Vance, misunderstood and headed back to third, even though he could have scored easily. Herman ignored the coach and headed for third himself, so that all three players wound up there. The third baseman tagged all three runners, putting out Fewster and Herman but not Vance, who was entitled to the base according to the rules as the lead runner there (and not forced to advance from there).

In addition to the quote from Lardner above, the three men on third story led to a standard joke in which a Brooklyn Dodgers fan, on being told that his team had three men on base, demanded to know which base.

We now have our own all-star Herman here at the evil blogger lady's joint.

I don't think any of these folks these folks can be trusted (Sorry..not buying Prosser as gentleman at all times line) to do their job without their interactions being recorded. Put them all on their best behavior...such as it is. High court my arse.

I see some of the people here defending Prosser are the same people who were shocked -- shocked! -- that prosecutors dropped charges against Dominique Strass-Kahn. Weren't you people saying that Strauss-Kahn should face a jury? Why not Prosser?

How do you defend this logic? Genuinely curious. You guys aren't just homers, right?

Ample evidence in the comments that this had nothing to do with "Did Prosser do what Bradley claimed?"

The left wants to win and will use (practically) any means necessary - defaming their opponents is one of their staples (as is claiming the election was stolen, both of which we've seen in their "Prosser campaign").

There will be no apology because - again, as the comments demonstrate - just because Prosser didn't do this (though some won't even concede that much), we all know he did "something."

murgatroid666 - "Coincidentally, on that very same June 15 I announced that garage mahal's mother is no stranger to the embraces of domestic pets and barnyard animals ... and garage didn't disagree with me.

What more proof does anyone need?"

===================Yes, and I clearly stated on June 16th that mahal's mother appeared to be therefore guilty of cruelty to animals and infliction of extreme emotional duress.No word from garage, who obviously kept silent out of shame about his momma's proclivities.

In other news, the existence of space aliens was proven Apr 19th, 2008. A crack whore in Miami told police that she was abducted and anally probed by aliens looking like ET, but nasty and who didn't even pay her. It is documented. And police saying to her that if they see a UFO, they will try and detain it and the occupants for questioning about the anal probe incident.

garage mahal said: "You didn't read a single line in the report, did you?"

I have read the Sherriff's report.

It's a bit too easy to pick and choose what testimony to quote or lift out of context, don't ya think?

But, honestly, I'd have to say that the report is much more damaging to Bradley's account than to Prosser's.

For example, Justice Gableman seems to come across as somewhat of a referee during the hysterics. Here was his "immediate" reaction to Bradley's claim that she was choked:

"Justice Gableman said he believed Justice Prosser's hands were on the area where the shoulders meet the neck on Justice Bradley at this time. Justice Gableman said it was not a violent push, and after a brief pause he recalled Justice Bradley saying, 'you choked me, you choked me.' Justice Gableman said he immediately responded to Justice Bradley by saying 'he didn't choke you, he pushed you to get your fist out of his face.'"

This, along with some other testimony, certainly gives the appearance of someone who saw an opportunity to malign a political opponent, but then muffed it. (Just as a side note, I suspect Bradley may have known immediately that she overreached with the choking accusation, but thought she couldn't back away from it. So, she doubled down, as they say.)

It's hard to know whether Bradley convinced herself that she had been choked through her political indoctrination or hysteria, or if she was just making it up. She hates Prosser, dislikes aggressive males and is well schooled in the buzzwords. (Hostile workplace, verbal abuse, etc.) She does not like being confronted, but is willing to confront others. She is inclined to female victimhood and thinks that calling Justice Shirley a "bitch" is akin to drawing a gun.

Prosser should not have called Shirley a bitch, and does get verbally aggressive. So what? These are not his most attractive moments, but Bradley and J. Shirley are lawyers, who have lived in a world of conflict for all their careers. They are not angels either. They ought to be able to handle a person who is sometimes harsh and raises his voice.

(Yes, I called Bradley hysterical. I know it's supposedly dismissive when applied to women, but it appears to apply in this case. If counseling is needed, Bradley might need it more than Prosser.)

It's hard to see how the Judicial Commission would be inclined to recommend discipline of either Prosser or Bradley based on this. I expect they might talk to and advise each of them based, but that will be done confidentially and we will never know (unless someone tells us.)

It is possible for two people to be jerks, but it is impossible for both to be the bigger jerk. I just have a superficial knowledge of this case, but it seems to me that Bradley and her supporters are by far the bigger jerks. Prosser seems impulsive and irritable, but that's a far cry from being the Madison Strangler. The was he was maligned seems calculated and malicious and of a different magnitude of offense than his alleged assault.

This is the level of left-wing activism we witnessed here in Madison. A justice is despised because his decisions do not please liberals, and so, without thought, they forgot about things liberals like to love themselves for caring about, such as fairness and due process.

Oh, give me a fucking break. I was disabused of this buncombe in my early 20s, watching the Bork and Thomas hearings.

I think Bradley and Abrahamson thought this was a way to get Prosser into some sort of "counseling." But like Bradley's emotions, it got out of control. Bradley's the one in need of professional help. Abrahamson is just incompetent.

There is no point in Prosser suing Bradley, because as David said, she may have been so caught up in her belief system she believed he was choking her. And Prosser would have poor standing having called Shirley a bitch lol.

"This is the level of left-wing activism we witnessed here in Madison. A justice is despised because his decisions do not please liberals, and so, without thought, they forgot about things liberals like to love themselves for caring about, such as fairness and due process."

And some people here, who voted for their candidate in 2008, are surprised by this?

Everyone should start using lawfare, as a way to overwhelm the system. Currently mainly Leftists abuse the courts, to their great advantage. Witness Prosser's repuation Alinskyed, as per the plan.

Which J and Garage are enacting splendidly. But please do keep pointing out their grammatical errors Althousians, because that makes you smarter (in everyone else's eyes) and America stronger.

In any event, Rick Perry should sue every media outlet for at least $50 million dollars (potential lost earnings) that incorrectly portrayed Perry as saying B.B.'s possible QE3 would be "treasonous" when in fact Perry said it would be "almost" treasonous.

In fact, we should all sue every single paper that used the false quote for the sole purpose of harming Perry (malicious bastards these), therby preventing him from earning a living in the future. Put these lying liars out of business for causing damages, as Rove et. al. have already publically testified has happened to Perry.

Clearly it was the 28" credenza's fault that kept Prosser from exiting the office and so in "total reflex" he put his hands around her neck. " when Bradely comes to within six inches of his face. I remember feeling her neck," Porssers adds, in a throw away line from a horror movie, although he can not quite remember shouting at anyone. Frankly after reading the testimony, I do not think Prosser's reputation will improve.

Althouse, the only conclusion is that people are reactionary [and so too are judges]. Sometimes those people are liberals and sometimes those people are conservatives. In the past sometimes those people were maybe British, or Roman, or Greek or Egyptian. Et al. It is a human trait.

Yes, liberals do this on occassion. But to pretend like liberals only do this and conservatives don't is - well - a tad naive. Especially for someone such as yourself who is worldly and knows a thing or two about history and people.

They don't care, in fact, who was wrong, how wrong, or who knows about it. They got a narrative and they are sticking to it.

Have you ever heard even one admit they were wrong. I myself have admitted mistakes on this blog a handful of times, and that's more times than all the lefties put together. Because they're really smart, and I'm merely honest.

As I commented when the story first came out, it never made sense to me that Prosser was the aggressor. After all, he had just won a narrow election. It's normally the losers who lash out, while winners tend to be magnanimous.

Now it's clear that Bradley charged Prosser with clenched fists. His critics apparently think Prosser should have either allowed the emotionally distraught Bradley to strike him as she had the other judge or simply have fled the scene. Given the scene described and the short time to process a response, it's easy to imagine many worse actions Prosser could have taken.

This report is a nearly complete vindication of Prosser and shows how prudent Ann's coverage has been.

Bradley's decision to involve law enforcement seriously calls into question her judgment. A supreme court justice has her complaint to law enforcement dismissed. It does explain her story about only being concerned with "workplace safety." The alternative was to admit her emotions so ruled her that she - a judge - couldn't see that her complaint didn't merit contact with the police, much less being brought to court.

How come the sentence that Justice Prosser LOST RESPECT FOR the Supreme Court's Chief ... didn't get to be heard?

It seems 3 other justices ... Gabelman, Roggensack ... and another ... had asked Prosser to GO TO PRINT WITH THEIR MAJORITY OPINION (on the "public meeting law.") And, Prosser told them he "wasn't comfortable with that."

THEN? They're looking for their Chief. (Crooks has already gone home. Perhaps alerted to do so because of his day's horoscope?)

When Prosser states the reason the 4 justices are looking for Abhahamson, Prosser includes the comment that he's lost faith in the Chief Justice.

If I had said what the people in the video at the last link said, I would be weeping now and begging forgiveness.

Sorry - love ya, kid - but you couldn't convince me of that for all the money in the world. You've been glaringly wrong before, the most obvious being voting for Obama (the results of which are much worse than what you're going on about now, since it affected hundreds of millions of people in hundreds of millions of ways) but never once have the words "I'm sorry" or anything close to serious self-reflection accompanied YOUR wrongs. Instead, like a liberal, you rationalise, and - like your buddy, Glenn Reynolds, use your blog's popularity for cover. That's just plain uncool.

Passing judgement on others (which, of course, I'm not against) Oh yes, Miss Ann is a master at that. Libera;s acting badly? She's got a lecture on decency. But let a Shouting Thomas call her on her OWN bullshit, and there is not a word of regret or remorse. Just because she can.

So, no, I don't buy this line for a second. You may possess a crusty exterior but your heart is liberal, through and through, and such an obviously hypocritical statement is a testimony to that fact, and nothing more.

If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have not made exaggerated claims against Prosser, but wanted to wait for evidence. Finding such, I have nothing to apologize for, as he clearly found his hands around a women's neck, or was it the mic of Fox News?Strange behavior to say the least. I feel no need to apologize for those who stirred the political pot of Prosser as in part because I think they were right to point how political our court is, and how juvenile its members are.

On a completely different subject, we note that Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are: Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true, and Kitman - Lying by omission.

"Sorry - love ya, kid - but you couldn't convince me of that for all the money in the world."

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to note the obvious. Presumably others passed on the chance because it was too obvious. That was my POV.

Anyway, I do disagree w/ Crack's proposed causation connection. I don't think it has anything to do w/ being lib. I know plenty of stubborn, irrationally unrepentant cons. Many of whom are boomers. Coincidence?

P.S.She's admitted to lying in at least one post. And, that was when she falsified what she ate for dinner. Apparently it's easy for her to come clean re such trivialities. But, imagine what she hasn't copped to, when it matters.

P.P.S. Regardless of her blind spot re her own faults, she's about a hundred times smarter than me. Not that that's a very high bar.

Of course, I would never trade my own ability/willingness to recognize my own faults for an Althouse level of wattage upstairs.

@roesch-voltaire:Finding such, I have nothing to apologize for, as he clearly found his hands around a women's neck, or was it the mic of Fox News?

RV: You're an idiot, as usual. The only ones claiming Prosser's hands were around her neck is Bradley herself, and some "witnesses" who Bradley spoke to (e.g. her husband) but didn't actually witness it.

This thread is a hoot. At least until it actually becomes time to lock and load, which I intend to do first. After all, I have read numerous times about what Lenin said about ballots and bullets. The pen is mightier than the sword, until the ca-ca hits the fan.

And this stupid behavior goes beyond partisanship. Prosser supported Abrahamson (or whatever her name is) for election years ago, and when ANOTHER justice didn't support her he lost his temper and called that justice a "viper."

roesch-voltaire said... If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have not made exaggerated claims against Prosser, but wanted to wait for evidence. Finding such, I have nothing to apologize for, as he clearly found his hands around a women's neck, or was it the mic of Fox News?

Roesch - I invite you to read the testimony of Justice Roggensack. It contradicts your assertion that Prosser “clearly found his hands around a women's neck.”

Justice Roggensack said the Chief Justice and Justice Prosser were arguing about whether or not a press release was going to be issued, and it was during this argument that Justice Bradley "charged at him [Justice Prosser] with her fist in the air". Justice Roggensack said when Justice Bradley approached Justice Prosser, Justice Prosser raised his hands and put his hands up near Justice Bradley's neck, but his hands were "never in a choke hold." Justice Roggensack said she recalled Justice Bradley saying something to the effect of "don't put your hands on me." Justice Roggensack again stated Justice Bradley had a fist up at this time. Justice Roggensack then said she wanted to make it clear that at no point did Justice Prosser have Justice Bradley in a chokehold, and Justice Prosser never applied pressure with his hands on Justice Bradley. Justice Roggensack said as soon as Justice Prosser's hands were placed on Justice Bradley, she got in between the two of them and she immediately told Justice Bradley that this was not like her.Justice Roggensack said Justice Bradley had always been a sort of protector for the Chief Justice because they go back a long way and they are friends. Justice Roggensack said if she had not got in between the two of them, she believes Justice Bradley would have "smacked him in the face with her fist."

If we only take the testimony of the observers and exclude that of Prosser and Bradley, a fair reading is that Prosser is not the one at fault.

I don't fault those how doubted Prosser's innocence when the story first broke. I fault those who called for his head at the time, and I fault those who can't yet admit that their initial assumptions were wrong.